Open Setup Certification Group

[mith]

Sure. All that is valid. I think it would be better to just play the occasional games with pre-assigned hydras, though (similar to what Korts is suggesting, I think). Pretty much any small game would be viable (possibly even improved) by hydrafication.

[Adel]

I totally agree mith. My post was partially motivated by:

I think Polygamist is just a gimmick; aside from flavor, I don't get why Lovers should be the only setup with a spinoff like that.

the original is not "just a gimmick" or a spinoff.

[mith]

Ok.

Mostly I just wanted to say "hydrafication".

[Adel]

IMHO newbie games could use some hydrafication.

[Lord Gurgi]

More games with hydras is good.

[Ether]

I think the newbie queue should just go back to C9 and implement autodeadlines of 3-4 weeks, but I know this is unfeasible because of the IC shortage and I try to stay away from this particular subject because I'm a bad IC. MOVING on.

How do we handle hydrified setups? Leave it to Farside to occasionally put one up with 20 total players or less?

[Lord Gurgi]

I think you just have a setup that takes hydras and let the people work it out before hand. I don't think forcing hydras will work terribly well.

[Ether]

What do you mean?

EDIT: I'm not sure you're actually disagreeing with me. The connotation of "hydrified" that I was using is that people get to choose who their partners are, but full hydrification of the setup would be Farside's call when she announces a new game to sign up for.

[Lord Gurgi]

I don't think I am disagreeing with you.

[shaft.ed]

Meh, thinking about it, I do think Polygamist is a different beast than Lovers. In Lovers, since only the mafia are lover paired, traditional "lover tells" are essentially scum tells. In Polygamist this is somewhat negated by making everyone a lover pair, thus "lover tells" can be demonstrated by scum and town alike.

[Ether]

That's only if the lovers don't claim; I expect that'd be fairly rare. I know Adel pushed for it in one game; how did it go?

[Adel]

IIRC, in 3/3 polygamist games everyone claimed pretty early day 1, but arguing about whether or not to massclaim gets day 1 going and ends the random stage quickly.

[shaft.ed]

IIRC, in 3/3 polygamist games everyone claimed pretty early day 1, but arguing about whether or not to massclaim gets day 1 going and ends the random stage quickly.

well if it's going on that frequently would it be considered a breaking strategy?

[Adel]

IIRC, in 3/3 polygamist games everyone claimed pretty early day 1, but arguing about whether or not to massclaim gets day 1 going and ends the random stage quickly.

well if it's going on that frequently would it be considered a breaking strategy?

by massclaim, I simply meant that everyone claimed who their lover is. all four scum are lovers, so they have to decide which pairs they will claim, but that is rather simple. It lets the scum team place a good player with a VI, if necessary, or otherwise choose pairs for tactical advantage.

I tried to argue, unsuccessfully, that there would be a marginal benefit to not claiming until day 2, or as late in day 1 as possible, but that advantage would, at best, be slim, and remains untested. (2/3 were won by the town)

[shaft.ed]

IIRC, in 3/3 polygamist games everyone claimed pretty early day 1, but arguing about whether or not to massclaim gets day 1 going and ends the random stage quickly.

well if it's going on that frequently would it be considered a breaking strategy?

by massclaim, I simply meant that everyone claimed who their lover is. all four scum are lovers, so they have to decide which pairs they will claim, but that is rather simple.

Yeah I understand that, but if that's making the game more "effecient" it seems retarded to play that set-up (and is why everyone suggested hydra'ing it but I was oblivious to the point of said conversation). Is it really optimal for town to claim their pairs?

[Adel]

I don't understand your question.

are we talking"breaking strategy" here?

claiming makes it more simple,

since you are able to treat each claimed pair as an individual, the question is when is the best time to make it more simple, and the process of figuring that out, or reacting to a premature partner claim, drives the game out of the random stage.

[Guardian]

I think Polygamist is just a gimmick; aside from flavor, I don't get why Lovers should be the only setup with a spinoff like that.

the original is not "just a gimmick" or a spinoff.

When

I

modify something, the original becomes "just a gimmick."

;).

[Adel]

@Guardian- in polygamist, when do you think the optimal time (for the town) for everyone to claim their lovers is?

[Guardian]

I am unsure about this, but I have an opinion.

The best time is fairly uncontroversially either:

(i) immediately at the start of day 1
(ii) as soon as you have a reasonable lynch candidate day 1

I think that (i) is better. It gives town more information, wastes less time, generates less noise (from people arguing about whether to do it now or later) and generates less untenable solutions (e.g. someone thinking that someone from three different lover pairs are scum). I think towns make better decisions with more information and a higher ratio of (possible solutions/solutions proposed).

(ii) Has only marginal benefits, in that people think more creatively and rule less people out, but the detriments I mentioned I think make it not worthwhile.

I would have to hear really great argument to convince me that you should claim later than after having a candidate you are ready to lynch day 1 -- you want to have a guess at what the complete scum group is day 1 before you lynch; you don't want to lynch a lover pair who you have no plausible other love pair that would complete the scum group.

[Adel]

under typical hydration, players share a hydra account, so a hydrated lovers game would not be the same as polygamist. In lovers you would never have this kind of debate in the game thread. Do you think that engineering the game to have this debate is worthwhile or a waste of time?

how do you think the balance compares between:
1. lovers (scum daytalk)
2. hydrated lovers (shared accounts, or public partner assignment by mod, scum daytalk)
3. polygamist (only mafia can daytalk)
4. polygamist (each set of lovers can daytalk)?

should town lovers be allowed to daytalk in polygamist?

[Guardian]

shaft.ed, even if it is optimal to claim your lover every single game in polygamist that doesn't make it a bad setup. i am unsure why you would think this. it doesn't "break the game."

under typical hydration, players share a hydra account, so a hydrated lovers game would not be the same as polygamist. In lovers you would never have this kind of debate in the game thread. Do you think that engineering the game to have this debate is worthwhile or a waste of time?

I think the debate shouldn't happen, but I rather like the idea of random-lover assignment. Pre-chosen lover assignment is too cliquey, and it wouldn't let me get to know new people and have the fun challenge of working with them. also it makes replacing a hell of a lot easier/better.

how do you think the balance compares between:
1. lovers (scum daytalk)

Harder for town than 3, since less minds are working to solve the same problem.

2. hydrated lovers (shared accounts, or public partner assignment by mod, scum daytalk)

Should probably be the exact same game as 3.

3. polygamist (only mafia can daytalk)

I am comparing with this as baseline.

4. polygamist (each set of lovers can daytalk)?

Should be exact same game as 3. Townie lovers should probably never daytalk in this game.

should town lovers be allowed to daytalk in polygamist?

No. I am a big fan of not allowing players to make decisions that are always or almost always bad.

[Adel]

I am a big fan of

not

allowing players to make decisions that are always or almost always bad.

fixed? otherwise I don't understand. daytalking should reduce blunders (more minds working in conjunction, with statements like "don't follow my vote on X" in the townie daytalking thread)

[Guardian]

I am a big fan of

not

allowing players to make decisions that are always or almost always bad.

fixed? otherwise I don't understand. daytalking should reduce blunders (more minds working in conjunction, with statements like "don't follow my vote on X" in the townie daytalking thread)

such discussions should always happen in public. Townies seeing a lover abruptly change his behavior or follow a pattern or work in a team should be a scum tell.

Private chat = bad.

[Adel]

got it. daytalking tells should be scumtells. That makes sense to me.

[shaft.ed]

shaft.ed, even if it is optimal to claim your lover every single game in polygamist that doesn't make it a bad setup. i am unsure why you would think this. it doesn't "break the game."

I was asking for opinions of people who played it. I've never been in any lover game.

On the surface it looks like holding back on the claims might be beneficial. When you force scum into pairs, you might notice cross tells within the scum lover group, no?

I also like Guardians argument in favor of lover assignments being random and not decided by the players.